* Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]> wrote:
> + /*
> + * Definitely wrong, but at this point we should have at least enough
> + * to do CALL/RET (consider SKL callthunks) and this avoids having
> + * to deal with the noinstr explosion for now :/
> + */
> + instrumentation_begin();
BTW., readability side note: instrumentation_begin()/end() are the
misnomers of the century - they don't signal the start/end of instrumented
code areas like the name falsely & naively suggests, but the exact
opposite: start/end of *non-*instrumented code areas.
As such they should probably be something like:
noinstr_begin();
...
noinstr_end();
... to reuse the nomenclature of the 'noinstr' attribute?
Thanks,
Ingo
